Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

16
  • 6
    That first quote is utter nonsense. The conclusions he draws from the evidence he lays out do not remotely follow from the evidence. Commented yesterday
  • 3
    One can always use self-reference as a cheeky way to defeat this sort of argument. "Science" is also not a thing, nor is a "proof", those are just a bunch of cells and particles moving around. So "science" cannot "prove" anything. Commented yesterday
  • 6
    @JD it's reductio as absurdam - if the human being is just made out of cells and the cells function on their own without needing to reference the "self" the same can be applied to human behaviors such as doing science and proving things. "Science" is also not present in the cells which make up human scientists nor in the moleculars of their equipment Commented 23 hours ago
  • 3
    @DarkMalthorp I see. You're advocating an argumentation strategy. :D Your comment makes more sense. Sorry about that. Commented 23 hours ago
  • 3
    Your phone is made up of molecules and electrons. Does that make it "not real"? Does it make the crossword puzzle you are playing on it "not real"? Does it make StackExchange "not real"? Just because something has constituent parts doesn't make it less real, it's merely a means to deeper understanding of the phenomenon. One cannot truly understand StackExchange without an understanding of software languages and machine code and processors and RAM and transistors and electrons and the molecular properties of doped silicon. Shit is complicated, but that doesn't make it fake. Commented 15 hours ago